強生醫療儀器有限公司

          戰略研究與國家型態 戰略研究與國家型態 Strategic Studies and National Style 前言 Forwords 在經過漫長的一段忽視期後，戰略學界中有關「國家型態」的研究終於在後冷戰時期又重新獲得了重視。這樣的轉變不僅是因為杭亭頓(Samuel Huntingtion)「文明衝突論」的啟發，最主要還是由於外在因素的改變所致：蘇聯解體後，兩極國際體系不再，國家認同與種族衝突使得「國家型態」在戰略研究中更形重要。[1] After years of ignorance, the study of national style has advanced to the forefront of the recent strategic agenda in the post-Cold War period. This shift in attention, notably inspired by Samuel Huntington’s Clashes of Civilisation theory, is partially a reaction to the change of external world; the collapse of the Soviet Union and a rigidly bipolar international system and the resurgence of national identities and ethnic conflicts. 和以往兩極對峙時期不同，許多戰略學者認為過去學界所普遍使用的「理性選擇模式」與「形式化模型驗證」，對於日趨多元的戰略現象已缺乏足夠的解釋力。當在後冷戰時期有越來越多的戰爭由於宗教、文化以及種族等因素而爆發時，所謂普遍國際或文化性質的研究方式，也不再被認為可以適當地解決戰略上的新議題。[2] 新問題在舊方式難以解決的情況下，一些戰略學者與政治學者又開始使用「國家型態」的研究方式，來進行新世紀中有關和平與戰爭問題的分析。 Unlike days of bipolar confrontation, many strategists were growing dissatisfied with the relative incompetence of rational choice theories or formal modeling to account adequately for a wide range of new strategic phenomena. When in the post-Cold War there are more and more wars breaking out of religious, cultural and ethnical reasons, generalising phenomena to cross-national and cross-cultural regularities is no longer taken as a persuasive approach to solve strategic problems. The cohabitation of new questions and unsatisfactory old answers has led many strategists and political scientists, to much more seriously consider national style as a research approach to analyse and understand war and peace in this world than before. 即使學界對於「國家型態」的興趣日增，但是該類研究方式仍然在戰略學界內受到不少質疑。這主要是從事「國家型態」研究的學者在一些基本議題，如詞彙及方法論上並未加以釐清所致。此外，「國家型態」研究者還常會在無意間陷入一些謬誤。其結果不僅造成了「國家型態」在戰略研究上缺乏顯著及系統化的知識累積，更難以談到所謂知識的「進化」了。[3] 在本文當中，作者將檢視在戰略研究中，有關「國家型態」的研究方式以及其缺點，同時也對該方法在戰略學上的運用加以評估。 Despite the rise in interest, however, national style approach still meets with scepticism from various sources inside and outside the strategic circles. This is mostly because scholars working on national style have not sufficiently engaged each other over basic issues such as terminology and methodology, and in addition have unintentionally entrapped into some fallacies. As a result, there has not yet been a remarkable and systematic accumulation, nor an evolution of knowl 開幕活動edge for national style approach in strategic studies. In this paper, I will re-examine the nature of national style approach (including its weakness) which reflects the strategic culture of different countries, and try to offer effective arguments on how useful the idea of national style is in strategic studies. 「國家型態」是否可用戰略研究當中？ National Style for Strategic Studies? 由戰略學的角度來看，國家是否展現出明顯的「國家型態」？在試著回答這個問題之前，有必要先來談談「國家型態」的本質。在這方面，布思(Ken Booth)或許提供了最為詳細的闡述。在其著作《戰略與種族中心主義》(Strategy and Ethnocentrism)當中，布思認為，「國家型態」指的是一國的傳統、價值、態度、行為類型、習慣、表徵、成就、特殊的適應環境方式，以及對於威脅與武力使用的解決之道。[4] 另外一位「國家型態」研究者江憶恩(Alastair Iain Johnston)則認為，「國家型態」是一套具有整合性的表徵系統，其中包括具有因果性的公設、語言、類比以及隱喻等等。藉由闡明國際政治事務當中，角色的概念與軍事武力的效力，該系統可以建立出具說服性與持久性的戰略優先順序。[5] Do security communities have distinctive national style in strategy? Before moving to the question raised, it is helpful to first discuss the nature of national style itself. Ken Booth perhaps provides the most detailed definition of the concept of national style. Emphasising in his Strategy and Ethnocentrism, he noted that national style refers to a nation’s traditions, values, attitudes, patterns of behavior, habits, symbols, achievements and particular ways of adapting to the environment and solving problems with respect to the threat or use of force. Another national style investigator, Alastair Iain Johnston believes that national style is an integrated system of symbols, i.e., causal axioms, languages, analogies, metaphors, etc., that act to establish pervasive and long-standing strategic preferences by formulating concepts of roles and efficacy of military force in interstate political affairs. 換言之，「國家型態」是一國對於戰爭與和平議題上，持續進行制度化的一套行為模式。這乃由一國之歷史、地理，以及政治文化等因素發展而來，並代表了其態度與行為模式的總合，並可藉之與其他群體做區分。也由於「國家型態」是直接來自一國的戰略文化，因此吾人可以藉由觀察一國的外在與內在影響變因，以及相關歷史事件來了解其國家戰略。換言之，「國家型態」提供了一獨特的框架，不僅可以影響到分析架構，也會影響到戰略學者所提出之戰略選項。[6] 此外，由於「國家型態」包涵了戰略環境秩序的基本假設、國家決策者對於國際衝突與其解決之道的看法，特別是在武力的使用上，因此用「國家型態」的研究方法來區分不同國家戰略便十分重要。 In other words, national styles, as a set of patterns of and for a nation’s behavior on issues of war and peace that are institutionalised, persist over time, are derived from a nation’s history, geography, and political culture, and represent the aggregate of attitudes and patterns of behavior and differentiate seo them from other groups. Since national style is a direct descendent of culture and that one can gain insight into strategy by understanding the nature of internal and external influences on national security and the historical precedents shaping policy, it provides a distinctive framework which significantly influences the analytical context and strategic options provided by national strategists. In addition, because national style includes basic assumptions about the orderliness of the strategic environment and the state decision-makers’ understanding of the international conflicts and their resolving methods, especially the understanding concerning use of force, the analysis of national style accordingly would be required to focus on the differentiation of each country’s national strategy. 雖然不同國家均有其獨特的「國家型態」存在，但要將「國家型態」做為一種分析方法可能是極為複雜的。正如同葛雷(Colin Gray)所說，要了解戰略，除了要考量國家的特殊歷史經驗，以及基於「國家型態」所做的闡述外，別無他法。[7] 有鑒於此，除了要在智識上嘗試做詳細而多重的努力，並需避免因簡化或一般化論證所造成的謬誤之外，根據柏格(Thomas Berger)的說法，「國家型態」的研究至少需要包涵三種重要的實證任務。首先，吾人必須要檢視原本就已存在的文化因素。這些文化因素將定義一國對於軍事、國家安全以及武力使用的看法。研究者對於國內各團體對這些事件的不同看法亦須特別注意。其次，政治的過程需要加以檢視。因為此過程不僅影響到一國實際國家安全政策之制定，也關係到某些政治決策之合法化。在這樣的架構下，適切定義在某特定時間中「政治－軍事文化」以及「國家安全政策」的本質就十分重要。第三，分析「政治－軍事文化」與「國家安全政策」的演進有其必要性，尤其是要觀察此兩者如何在歷史事件的影響下所做的演變。[8] Although there is no doubt that distinctive national styles do exist among different countries, the examination of national style of a particular nation as a security community for its strategy is arduously complicated. As Colin Gray argued, to understand strategy, there is no alternative but to take seriously the historical experiences of particular nation and the interpretation national style places on those experiences. For doing so, except for those detailed, multilayered intellectual efforts, the analysis of national style involves three central empirical tasks, according to Thomas Berger, if the fallacy of simplisation and generalisation in strategic studies is to be avoided. First, it is necessary to investigate the original set of cultural elements that define how a given country views the military, national security, and the use of force, paying careful attention to the interpretation of these events among different groups in the state. Second, one needs to examine the political process through which actual security policy has been made and how particular decisions have subsequently been legitimated. In this context, it is important to properly define the essential features of both the politi 賣房子cal-military culture and the security policy associated with it at a particular point of time. Third, it is necessary to analyse the evolution of both the political-military context and security policies over time, monitoring how they evolve in response to historical events. 國家型態分析方法的有效性 How useful is national style approach? 要承認不同國家各有其獨特的「國家型態」或許並不困難，但卻不是所有人都會肯定用「國家型態」的方式來做為分析國家戰略的有效性。舉例來說，對於馬克斯主義者以及其他唯物主義者來說，「國家型態」不過是一種外在現象。對於結構主義者來說，結構可以涵蓋各國不同的戰略行為模式。對於現實主義者來說，「國家型態」在各國之間未必會呈現出太大的不同。「國家型態」最多是關於能力之分配情形，沒有太大的解釋力。對於信奉理性選擇模式的學者來說，國家行為者對於「國家型態」的使用僅具有策略性。就和其他可用的資源一樣，「國家型態」不過是國家用來追求利益的工具，不需要特別加以思考。 To agree an argument that security communities have distinctive styles in their strategic performance may not encounter too much difficulty as previously discussed, but not everyone can entirely approve national style as a useful approach for analysing national strategy. For example, Marxists and other materialists see national style as primarily epiphenomenal. For structualists, structure can cover the differences in strategic behaviours across nations. For realists, the impact of national style may not vary much across large groups of states. National style is at best derivative of the distribution of capabilities and has no independent explanatory power. For rational choice scholars, actors deploy national style strategically, like other resources, simply to further their own self-interests without any other significant considerations. 基於這樣的輕視，這些學派刻意地在其研究當中，遺漏或忽略「國家型態」，並用頗為雷同的研究架構來分析不同國家的戰略問題。不過很不幸地，他們的研究對於許多後冷戰時期的現象仍缺乏解釋力。[9] 比方來說，或許是由於克勞塞維茨所留下的遺產之故，西方國家長久以來總是將軍事力量置於國家戰略以及國際關係的中心。而在其他軍力較弱的第三世界國家，軍力的運用卻往往會混合到其他文化、宗教或是個人的因素，但這些因素在西方國家卻不甚受到重視。職是之故，有越來越多學者決定放棄想要建立起所謂「典則」或是「大戰略」模式，而開始專注在文化層次上的分析。[10] 如此一來，若是沒有深入地進行有關「國家型態」的分析，戰略學者們或許就無法獲得合理的解釋。 Those schools intentionally unidentifying or ignoring national style in their research investigations, which obscured the nontrivial strategy between different countries within the same broad framework, however, were found lack of explanatory power for many strategic issues in the post cold war period. For example, the Western countries have long considered military power a centre of national strategy and international relations, perhaps as a byproduct of their Clauzwitzian heritage. For other third world cou 西服ntries with inferior military capacities, the concept and utility of military power are often mixed up with the integration of cultural, religious or personal influences, which Westerners could barely conceptualise. More and more scholars have thus abstained from paradigm researching or grand theory building, and concentrated on cultural-area level analyses. In that case, without in-depth consideration on national style, strategists can hardly find reasonable explanations. 當然了，「國家型態」的研究方法並非沒有缺點。即使有越來越多人認同這樣的分析方式，但其缺點仍然不可忽視。以下本文將分別討論「國家型態」研究的缺點以及改善方式，希望能讓此種分析方式更有利於戰略研究。 National style approach, however, is not without weakness, even with the growing recognition of its intellectual and practical contributions. In the following paragraphs, I will discuss the weakness and further refinement of national style approach so that hopefully it can be improved to be a more useful instrument for strategic studies. 「國家型態」研究的改善方式 Further Refinement of National Style Approach 科學方法 Scientific methods 所有可以被稱為「科學」的知識都與其研究方式與領域有關。事實上，任何做為一種對於系統化與價值中立知識的追求，都需要運用科學方法來處理研究資料，藉之提供概念化的模式以用來描述與解釋現象。[11] 也唯有這樣，我們才能獲得各種客觀的知識，戰略研究亦是如此。在戰略研究當中，所謂「科學方法」包括兩種含義：一方面來說，戰略研究的研究方法必須具有一致性；但這並不代表研究者必須固守著某一種研究方法而不知變通。[12] 事實上，沒有哪一種研究方式是可以永遠合用的。[13] 研究方法的合用與否必須因時因地制宜，而研究者也必須隨著不同的情況來做獨立的推論。[14] 在另一方面，研究者如要運用「國家型態」做為戰略研究的研究方式，則必須要能提供一套清晰而有效的論述，藉之表現出不同國家中的不同主張，也好讓其他研究者能對此論述加以驗證或反證。[15] All knowledge that fits under the heading of science is relative to the methods and fields of study from which it comes. In fact, as a systematic and neutral attempt to satisfy knowledge enquiries, scientific methods, which are instruments used to deal with research material, and to offer “modes of conceptualization for describing and explaining, may be the only possible way to gain objective knowledge of various subject matters, including strategic studies. Accordingly, there are two implications of scientific methods in strategic studies. On one hand, strategic methodology must be consistent, but there is no fixed approach that strategists have to choose and there is no theory that they need to accept as permanently true. The usefulness of methods must be discreetly judged case by case, and knowledge formed by each given case should be inferred independently. On the other hand, strategic methods on national style should be able to produce a clear and valid arrangement of propositions expressing various kinds of claims on individual 房地產 countries being studied so that they could be verified or falsified by other researchers. 為了要強化「國家型態」研究方法在戰略研究上的嚴謹性與可用性，以下有三個條件需要加以滿足： In order to strengthen the methodological vigour of national style approach in strategic studies, there are three requirements to follow: (1) 適當的研究技術  為了要拉近戰略理論與事實上的差距，使用適當的研究技術遂有其必要性。所謂的「適當的研究技術」主要包括了對於戰略現象做系統性、概念化陳述的相關作為。藉由有效且可靠的研究技術，研究者可以科學化地評估「國家型態」，也可以在很大程度上讓戰略研究成果不會僅僅只是主觀的臆測。[16] 此外，適當的研究技術也可以做為一項客觀工具或標準，用來促使「國家型態」在戰略研究中，能合於學術標準。[17] 經由詳加設計的研究技術，諸如統計、調查、田野實習、或是參與觀察法等，研究「國家型態」的戰略研究者或許會有更多自信對外宣稱，他們的研究具有足夠的科學性來提供適切的戰略選項。 (1) Proper techniques Attempts to close the disparity between strategic theory and reality must principally rely on the employment of proper research techniques, which include measurement and operation that could systematically conceptualise strategic phenomena. By means of proper techniques, which should be valid and reliable, one can assess national style scientifically and in a great degree free strategic studies from pure assumptions. Meanwhile, proper techniques could also serve as an objective checks and standards to assure adherence of national style approach in strategic studies to academic requirements. By well-designed techniques, for example, statistics, survey, fieldwork, participant observation, etc., strategists may have more confidence to say that their studies through national style approach are scientifically qualified to produce appropriate strategy. (2) 充分的資訊  研究所用的資訊在質與量上都必須要充分，如此不但能有助於系統性地研究不同國家的戰略，同時也能進行比較分析。換言之，所有有關「國家型態」的描述性與解釋性推論都必須要建立在充份資訊的獲得上。這些資訊不僅要精準、適當、且客觀，方能合乎科學方法與理論所需。這些資料若能更佳地說明各國的歧異點，則戰略研究者會更有把握能使用或接受其研究所產生的結論。[18] 也因此，戰略研究者所能接觸資訊的多寡，不但能顯現出其研究的可行性及可信度，在事實上也決定了其研究品質之良窳。 (2)Sufficient information Sufficient information in either quantitative or qualitative form can facilitate strategic studies on different nations being theoretically extracted and comparatively analysed. Every descriptive or explanatory inference on national style must assure the acquisition of sufficient information, which should be as precise, adequate, and unbiased as required by the methods or theories being used. The better information could logically lead to clarification of national differentiation, the more reasons that the strategist could use and accept the explanation and conclusion of his or her studies. Therefore, strategists’ accessibility to 景觀設計 information, which demonstrates how well their propositions can fit and work, crucially decides the quality of their researches. (3) 避免排他性  「國家型態」雖然有用且重要，但卻不應主觀地將其視為一種研究國家戰略的決定性及排他性研究方式。事實上，也沒有哪種研究方法可以單一地對戰略現象做出完整的解釋或解釋。「國家型態」只不過是研究國家戰略的工具之一。如果要獲得較深刻的了解的話，研究者也需要藉由對其他面相的檢視，來獲得多元且不同的觀點。不過很不幸地，當「國家型態」為戰略研究界所使用的時候，研究者們往往會忽略了「國家型態」與其他變因的關係。有些傳統的「國家型態」研究者甚至還會刻意地拒絕承認非歷史與非文化因素在戰略現象的重要性。為了避免這樣偏見的發生，研究者應盡可能將所有可能造成影響的變因納入考量，以強化研究的有效性。[19] 比方說，如果要能讓研究有足夠可信度的話，研究者必須謹慎地考量到「國家型態」的概念與其他的分析方式，如組織結構、理性分析、角色、或是國際體系等要素之間的關係。 (3) Non-exclusiveness National style itself, though useful and important, should not be judgmentally considered as a deterministic and exclusive analysis for national strategy since there is no single approach that could provide complete descriptions or full explanations on strategic phenomenon. National style approach is simply a tool that may be of assistance in analysing national strategy, which still essentially requires other examinations from multiple, diverse perspectives if one hopes to achieve a deeper understanding. Unfortunately, when national style is to be discussed in the strategic context, most studies have seldom gone far enough to detect a correlation between national style and other influential factors or deduce a theoretical linkage between them. Some of traditional national style researchers are even inappropriately inclined to reject ahostorical or non-cultural factors found in strategic phenomena. To avoid this, strategists should accommodate as many variables as possible to strengthen the validity of their researches, and require prudent use of the concept of national style in conjunction with other means of analysis, such as organisational, rational, role or international system analysis if this approach is to remain viable and credible. 「國家型態」的演變性 Evolution of national style 即使科學方法能讓戰略研究者們有較為科學的方式來觀察「國家型態」，吾人仍必須要了解到：「國家型態」並不是一個固定的現象。沒有考慮到「國家型態」的演變性，是沒有辦法獲得好的戰略的。的確，「國家型態」的演變十分緩慢，甚至比其他影響戰略的變因都來得慢得多。但如果從一個較長期的角度來觀察，「國家型態」的演變性仍十分明顯。美國從孤立主義到干涉主義間的變化就是一個好例子。因此，戰略研究者不能拘泥在過去所獲得的結論上，在研究現在的「國家型態」時也必須要保持相當的彈性。對於不同的歷史時段，研究者必須要有不同的分析，才能避免在推論上產生一般化的問題，也才能在戰略研究上產生累積性的知識。此外，如果以往的結論不能經得起時間的檢驗的話，這樣的結論就應該加以拋棄，或是就把它當做是歷史的一部份來看待。對「國家型態」死守著 東森房屋某一項特定的理論、應用模式，或是工具，並不能使其成為戰略研究的有效工具。更詳細來說，在談到「國家型態」的演變性時，研究者要避免以下三種謬誤： Even though scientific methods enable strategists to observe national style in a scientific fashion, one shall be at the same time aware that national style is by no means a permanent phenomenon, and good strategy cannot be obtained without recognising the evolution of national style. It is true that national style changes slowly, sometimes even lagging behind the changes of other variables in strategy. But from a long term perspective, the logic of dynamic evolution of national style in strategic studies is undoubtedly quite explicit. The style fluctuation between isolationism and interventionism of the American governments would be a good example. As such, strategists should not always follow previous conclusions, but undertake studies in current settings in a flexible way. Different historical periods need to be given specific discretion of assessment in order to avoid general problems existing in the deductive methods and to produce a cumulative body of knowledge of strategy. Meanwhile, if a causal inference can no longer endure testing over time, it should be simply discarded or withdrawn as a part of history. Adherence to a certain theory, application or instrumentation on national style is by no means an effective approach to strategic investigation. The evolutionary essence of national style lies in the denial of three following fallacies. (1) 單一論的謬誤 「國家型態」是一個極為複雜的現象，涵括了許多不同的歷史、文化、以及社會的因素，同時也極具變化性。因此，研究者很難用一套固定模式去探討「國家型態」內變因的互動。事實上，對於某一國家重要或有用的，不見得就適用在其他國家的例子上。因此，戰略研究者必須小心不要落入單一論的陷阱，而對於某些因素不當地強調或誇大。 (1)Fallacy of monism National style is a complicated combination of various historical, cultural and societal factors which are dynamic by nature. There is no fixed pattern to discuss how factors interact within national style itself. What is important or useful to one country is not necessarily to the others. Strategists should carefully avoid falling into the pitfall of monism by which certain factors or patterns are unduly emphasised or exaggerated. (2) 恆久性的謬誤 「國家型態」在戰略研究的理論與實踐，並非像數學或物理公式那樣，可以精準地以機械方式加以運用。事實上，用「國家型態」的研究方式來對某國家做檢驗時，某特定結論不應具有恆久性。在本質上，所有有關「國家型態」的論述都應只視為暫時性。在某特定時空條件下，研究者仍隨時要注意新證據的產生，以在必要時能對其研究成果做適當的修正。此外，如果運用「國家型態」的研究方式仍不能解決某一特定戰略問題的話，研究者也應承認該種研究方式的缺點，並暫時放棄以此做為解決問題的方式。畢竟，「國家型態」並不是所有戰略問題的萬靈丹。 (2)Fallacy of permanence National style in strategic theories and operations is not like a precise formula in mathematics or 訂做禮服 physics to be applied mechanically. There is no permanent applicability of one conclusion existing by certain national style investigation. All claims on national style should be tentative in essence, and subject to revision on the basis of new evidence in a given environment. Additionally, if a strategic question cannot be answered by national style approach in some cases, one must simply admit the shortfall of such investigation and be prepared to leave it unanswered for the time being. National style approach is not a panacea to all strategic issues. (3) 典則的謬誤  正如同其他社會科學中有關文化的研究一般，「國家型態」的研究方式在戰略研究中也要確認出國家的獨特性。然而，研究者在這樣的過程中卻不應推論出甲國比乙國「優秀」或是「更進步」之類的結論。特別是當西方戰略學已經成為戰略研究界一個重要的研究指標時，研究者要了解到這並不代表西方戰略較諸其他戰略更為優良，或是其他國家必須要加以仿傚。[20] 在此同時，戰略研究者也必須認知到，每個研究案例應該都具有其獨立性，不應預先存有某種「一般性概念」，來當做分析的架構。因為平心而論，沒有一種「國家型態」可以被當做是戰略研究的「典則」或「大戰略理論」。研究者不應僅靠自己本身的價值觀或信念，就任意地對某一國家妄下一般性定論。研究者越想從某一特定環境中獲取一般性的結論，其研究可能就越缺乏可信度及確實性。[21] (3) Fallacy of paradigm As other cultural studies in social sciences, strategic research by national style approach is useful to identify national individuality, but is not leading to a conclusion that any given style is “better” or “more progressive” than others. For instance, when Western strategy becomes a popular form of analysis within the strategic circle, it is not to say that such strategic application originated from Western style is superior and should be copied by other countries. Those who are doing strategic studies through national style approach should always bear in mind that every case study is independent can should not fix to certain framework of “general ideas”. There should be no single national style can be taken as a paradigm or grand theory model for strategic studies. Researchers cannot draw a general conclusion from one single social or cultural setting out of their personal value or belief. The more researchers attempt to generalise phenomena from a specific case, the less credible and accurate their studies will be. 結論 Conclusions 誠如布思所說，「戰略研究如果脫離了區域研究的話，則不啻只是空想而已。」[22] 本質而言，「國家型態」是一整組總體戰略概念的總合，國家戰略不但源此而生，[23] 「國家型態」對於一國之戰略思想與行動，以及因其所產生的有關戰略選項之信念，也有重要的影響力。因此，「國家型態」在戰略研究上具有兩種基本角色：在一方面，「國家型態」提供了一獨特的分析環境，並會在實際上影響到整個研究的結果；在另一方面，「國家型態」也會影響到國家戰略當中行為者或是變因的互動關係。 Ken Booth may rightly discover that “strategic studies divorced from area studies is largely thinking in a void.” In essence, national style is a whole set of macro- 個人信貸strategic concepts, by which national strategy is to set up, and produced patterns of thought and action that result in a specific set of belief with respect to strategic options. Therefore, national style plays two fundamental roles in strategic studies. On one hand, it provides an analytical context, which affects the outcome of the whole research. On the other hand, it also influences the reactions of actors or variables of strategy. 有鑒於此，本文對於使用「國家型態」做為戰略研究的研究方法提出了四項重要結論。首先，正如同江憶恩所說，「目前戰略研究界充斥著美國種族中心論，而嚴重忽略了各國不同型態的戰略。」[24] 「國家型態」的研究方式應在事實上，能讓研究者了解到要避免美國中心主義的影響。[25] 其次，認為某特定國家的「國家型態」優於其他國家的想法是不正確的。研究戰略事務者必須要注意不要將個人標準或動機投射在自己的研究上，也不應預先設想某種國家傳統具有優越性。因為這樣的想法恐怕只會造成誤解或甚至是錯誤。第三，「國家型態」的影響力是重要的，但戰略事務通常都很複雜，不太可能光靠研究文化議題就可以解決所有的問題。研究者千萬不要認為「國家型態」就是最完善的研究方式，因為還有其他要素會影響到一國的戰略研究與安全政策。[26] 最後，目前的「國家型態」研究方式還需要再加強化，如藉助科學方法的分析，以及承認「國家型態」的演進性等等。也只有這樣，「國家型態」的研究者才能獲得更為有用且具實證性的研究成果。 Accordingly, this paper has made four major conclusions on the utility of national style approach in strategic studies. Firstly, just as Alastair Johnston complained, “strategic studies has been characterised by American ethnocentrism and a concomitant neglect of national style strategy”. Studies on national style will be useful because it calls attention to the dangers of ethnocentrism in strategic thought. Secondly, it is wrongly to argue that certain national style is to be endowed with superiority with the ignorance of the existence of other national styles. Students of strategic affairs should be cautioned not to project their standards and motives on researches and not to assume that certain national traditions are superior, since these assumptions may lead to misunderstanding or mistakes. Thirdly, understanding the influences of national style is important, but strategic issues are usually complicated and not likely to be defined solely in terms of analysing cultural deviation. Researchers should never jump into conclusion that national style approach is a comprehensive way for strategic studies. There are other elements which could affect the formulation of a state’s security policy and the implementation of its strategy. And finally, current national style approach needs more refinement, such as the assistance of scientific methods and the recognition on evolution of national style so that more useful and positive results for strategic researches can be likely required. 本文刊登於空軍學術雙月刊2007年6月號。 [1] Sheri Berman, “Norms and Culture in Political Analysis”, in Comparative Politics, January 2001, pp. 231-2 租房子50.  .